Saturday, November 01, 2008
Scared
I know that no one's defending Palin on her stunning amendment views, but I just can't get over my horror, so I'll offer more on on the topic. This is A. Serwer writing at Tapped who says it better than I can:
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
This understanding of the First Amendment, not as freedom of speech, but as freedom of speech limited to me and those who share my political views, coupled with a freedom from criticism of those views, is the most frightening interpretation of the Constitution I've ever heard in my life. Those "attacks" from the MSM are protected under the Constitution, Palin's "right" to be "free" from such "attacks" (read: critical coverage) is most definitely not.
But this bizarre interpretation is at the core of the right's complaints about unfavorable media coverage. Rush Limbaugh typically invokes this "understanding" of the First Amendment when criticizing groups like Media Matters, accusing them of being "Stalinist" for recording his nationally broadcast programming and calling him out on inaccuracies or flagrant bigotries. In Limbaugh and Palin's minds, the First Amendment protects not only their speech but shields any criticism of said speech.
And as Ben Smith points out, the First Amendment exists to protect people from government, not the other way around, which is what makes Palin's interpretation of the Constitution so deeply alarming.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Worse comes to worst - 4 votes
I was intrigued to read a blogger we know and admire write "worse/worse." Did anyone get an answer?
Update from Stephanie: Apparently, there's more than one acceptable version:
Update from Stephanie: Apparently, there's more than one acceptable version:
Posted without comment
AP-Yahoo! News poll, “Changeable voters … 1 in 7 voters still persuadable,” By[Corner/Lowry]
AP’s Alan Fram: “a stubborn wedge of people, … somehow, are still making up their minds about who should be
president. One in seven, or 14 percent, can't decide or back a candidate but
might switch, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll of likely voters
released Friday. Who are they? They look a lot like the voters who've already
locked onto a candidate, though they're more likely to be white and less likely
to be liberal. And they disproportionately backed Hillary Rodham Clinton's
failed run for the Democratic nomination.”
Well, a little comment. "Told you."
Ok, I've voted
What a weird town this is. I had at least ten slots in which Democrats were unopposed.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Now I don't have to drink to vote next Tuesday....
Just heard Senator McCain on Hugh Hewitt. He acknowledged his differences (humility) with HH and, therefore, the base (me, more base than HH). I know, shoring up one's base at this late hour is a sign of weakness, but maybe not this time.
More Scooter's VDH lovefest
Some nice thoughts heading toward the weekend:
Fourth, the war in Iraq is no longer even a war in a traditional sense…. The cost of deploying American troops in Iraq is nearing the expense to station them elsewhere abroad. As Iraqis continue to take over additional provinces, the American presence will shrink further.
There are also long-term reasons to believe the United States will better weather the current storm. We are a transparent society that blares out problems, affixes blame, and then fights publicly over solutions. Japan’s real estate meltdown of the 1990s took years to correct, given the emphasis on secrecy and shame within Japanese financial circles.
…
American banks are subject to uniform national policy and are forced to act in concert. In contrast, British, French, and German lending institutions are often unwilling to bail out other countries, and compete with each other to attract scarce capital in times of crisis.The United States military remains far stronger — and more battle-hardened — than the rest of the world’s armed forces combined. Rogue nations and terrorists try to take advantage of economic uncertainty, but America remains the best-defended democracy in the world.
The current financial crisis has startled America from a hypnotic trance of self-indulgence and irresponsibility. But as we return to American fundamentals, we may discover that our political, social, and economic system — despite all the current election-cycle hysteria — is still by far the most resilient in the world.
Fourth, the war in Iraq is no longer even a war in a traditional sense…. The cost of deploying American troops in Iraq is nearing the expense to station them elsewhere abroad. As Iraqis continue to take over additional provinces, the American presence will shrink further.
There are also long-term reasons to believe the United States will better weather the current storm. We are a transparent society that blares out problems, affixes blame, and then fights publicly over solutions. Japan’s real estate meltdown of the 1990s took years to correct, given the emphasis on secrecy and shame within Japanese financial circles.
…
American banks are subject to uniform national policy and are forced to act in concert. In contrast, British, French, and German lending institutions are often unwilling to bail out other countries, and compete with each other to attract scarce capital in times of crisis.The United States military remains far stronger — and more battle-hardened — than the rest of the world’s armed forces combined. Rogue nations and terrorists try to take advantage of economic uncertainty, but America remains the best-defended democracy in the world.
The current financial crisis has startled America from a hypnotic trance of self-indulgence and irresponsibility. But as we return to American fundamentals, we may discover that our political, social, and economic system — despite all the current election-cycle hysteria — is still by far the most resilient in the world.
Campaign Spending
I haven’t followed this subject with much interest so I’ll side with Michael on the substance but trust Stephanie that Senator Obama left himself an out on the issue. I’ve also got no problem with Senator Obama having raised so much money so long as done properly (another subject). Having said that, I wonder if VDH is right about future campaigns. I don’t think the issue is dead. If it comes up again in four or eight years and the financial shoe is on the other foot, the media will still howl:
The $600 million that Obama amassed and abject rejection of public campaign financing. There are three problems: (1) the breaking of one’s word; (2) the creation of such a vast treasure chest; (3) and the complete destruction of the principle of public financing. Never again, will one on the Left make the credible argument either that there is a poisonous nexus between big money and big politics, or that the government should step in to ensure that special interests do not exercise an inordinate influence. So Obama essentially destroyed the idea of public campaign financing of national elections. It’s dead, kaput—over with for good. And the media simply skipped that latter story. (Again, imagine the media’s reaction should McCain have flipped on the issue, rejected public financing, raised a $600 million war-chest, outspent Obama 4-1, and now was airing 30-minute infomercials unanswered by the poorer, and public financed Obama.)
The $600 million that Obama amassed and abject rejection of public campaign financing. There are three problems: (1) the breaking of one’s word; (2) the creation of such a vast treasure chest; (3) and the complete destruction of the principle of public financing. Never again, will one on the Left make the credible argument either that there is a poisonous nexus between big money and big politics, or that the government should step in to ensure that special interests do not exercise an inordinate influence. So Obama essentially destroyed the idea of public campaign financing of national elections. It’s dead, kaput—over with for good. And the media simply skipped that latter story. (Again, imagine the media’s reaction should McCain have flipped on the issue, rejected public financing, raised a $600 million war-chest, outspent Obama 4-1, and now was airing 30-minute infomercials unanswered by the poorer, and public financed Obama.)
American Breadlines and the Big Three
I didn’t watch the infomercial but have had this thought a lot lately though less about Senator Obama and more about some of the things coming from others on the left. Whatever our problems are right now, America is not one big breadline. To be fair, all politicians exploit these anecdotal cases but I think Obama's special really pushed the boundaries of my bile duct here.
Just as one particular example, I was struck by the guy at the Ford plant; it noted that his father and grandfather had worked at Ford and retired with full benefits. And now he's only paid to work every other week. Is he suffering currently because of the state of the economy and George Bush's economic policies, or because his dad and grandad's union extracted exorbitant benefits and retirement packages that mean Ford is now saddled with crushing financial obligations?
I've heard it said that with GM, at least, something like $1000-$2000 of each vehicles price goes to the benefits of GM retirees. As for the "extraction" of "exhorbitant benefits" by the unions, the big three are as equally to blame. The writing has been on that wall for much longer that the subprime grafitti.
From Mark Hemingway at the Corner:
Just as one particular example, I was struck by the guy at the Ford plant; it noted that his father and grandfather had worked at Ford and retired with full benefits. And now he's only paid to work every other week. Is he suffering currently because of the state of the economy and George Bush's economic policies, or because his dad and grandad's union extracted exorbitant benefits and retirement packages that mean Ford is now saddled with crushing financial obligations?
I've heard it said that with GM, at least, something like $1000-$2000 of each vehicles price goes to the benefits of GM retirees. As for the "extraction" of "exhorbitant benefits" by the unions, the big three are as equally to blame. The writing has been on that wall for much longer that the subprime grafitti.
More right-wing talking points
"There has been a complete and utter smear job of our fellow citizen, Sarah Palin, who is only trying to serve her country.”
Oh wait a minute. No it's not. [Allah]
Oh wait a minute. No it's not. [Allah]
Unmarked small bills
"The Obama-Biden campaign might just as well have set up dumpsters all over the world into which illegal donors could dump shopping bags full of cash donations made in unmarked small bills."
Bill Dyer is on the case.
Bill Dyer is on the case.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
